Is America a Force for Good in the World? No.
(AntiWar.com) -- by Justin Raimondo --
With the “liberation” of Libya from the grip of Muammar Gadhafi, progressives like E. J. Dionne and other cheerleaders for this administration are hailing the joint US-NATO operation as a new model for American intervention – an exemplar of the “good” way to push our weight around on the international stage, as opposed to the “bad” way pursued by George W. Bush and the neoconservatives in Iraq. As Glenn Greenwald points out, the same triumphalist message being trumpeted by this administration’s supporters over Libya was uncritically broadcast by the “mainstream” media in the wake of “mission accomplished” in Iraq.
That reality will soon intrude, and correct this “irrational exuberance” – as a certain Federal Reserve chairman would put it – is an absolute certainty. Indeed, a few skeptical voices are already being raised, notably Patrick Cockburn, reporting from Benghazi:
“Any black African in Libya is open to summary arrest unless he can prove that he was not a member of Colonel Gadhafi’s forces… The rebels claim that many of Colonel Gadhafi’s soldiers were black African mercenaries. Amnesty International says these allegations are largely unproven and, from the beginning of the conflict, many of those arrested or, in some cases, executed by the rebels were undocumented laborers caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“But there is no doubt that all black Africans are now under suspicion. The head of the militia in Faraj, a short bearded man in a brown robe named Issam, explained how well-prepared local insurgents had taken over the area on 19 August, telling Colonel Gadhafi’s supporters to hand over their weapons and stay at home. There was almost no resistance from the demoralized regime and few people had been arrested. Then Issam added, as an aside, that his men had also detained ‘tens of Africans whom we sent off to prison.’ He did not explain why they had been jailed.”
Across “liberated” Libya, black Africans are being rounded up by the rebel forces, and often either summarily executed or else imprisoned. See here, here, and here for more disgusting evidence of the rebels’ anti-black campaign.
Gadhafi reportedly hired African mercenaries to fight for his regime, and this is the ostensible reason why the rebels are rounding up blacks, but this explanation seems more like an excuse than an actual reason in view of the fact that there have been periodic anti-black riots in the country, notably in 2000.
The idea that American imperialism could be a force for “good,” with a “progressive” president holding the reins, was never very convincing. But even I never expected to be confronted with the ultimate irony: the first African-American President appears to be responsible, in part, for a large scale anti-black pogrom. This is his signal foreign policy “accomplishment” – a mass lynching...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
Where is the left-liberal and African-American outrage across the country and cries against Barack Obama's "racism" for facilitating these anti-Black pogroms?
It just goes to show that despite all the soaring rhetoric and platitudes about "equality" and "social justice," getting control of government is not about any high moral or ethical principle whatsoever, and all about access to the purse stings in order to wring financial resources from average, honest and hard-working Americans and divert them mostly to the left if you're a liberal fascist and mostly to the right if you're a neocon fascist, and in order for both to use those stolen resources to punish their enemies.
Meanwhile, both sides see to it that the Zionist fascists keep getting their palms greased no matter which band of thugs, gangsters and post-Western, anti-Christian degenerates is holding the purse strings.
Do thieving, fascist gangsters and thugs have souls? I would say that despite the professed religiosity of some of them, they are all essentially Godless atheist materialists who believe existence is entirely about material resources, personal luxuries, and self-aggrandizement which is why they so desperately want control of government, and why they continue to grow government on both the left and the right once they get that control.
What are the implications of an essentially atheist-materialist existence? This means that if they die tomorrow, or 50 years from tomorrow, their existence is irrelevant, and all they really amount to, what their entire Godless existence comes down to, is a carbon footprint.
By their own logic, the heavens will not erupt or weep or even register their lack of existence, their absence of existence, their void, whether they live a full life span or a prematurely truncated one because, per their own essential beliefs, there are no heavens, or the concept of heavens or God or Godliness is just a ruse to keep themselves and their particular gang luxuriated, well-fed, and highly aggrandized.
No wonder no one rally weeps for soulless leftists, neocons, fascists, Zionists etc. once they're gone, other than perhaps their fellow gangsters, who themselves are soulless and thus irrelevant.
Soulless, walking carbon footprints all, who can just as easily NOT exist as exist, and whose lack of existence will not effect the spiritual balance whatsoever.
Comment by "Chris Moore" on Semitism and Capitalism, by Andrew Joyce - The most obvious merit of middleman minority theory is that, like Kevin MacDonald’s theory of a group evolutionary strategy, it places an unusual and wel...
5 hours ago